Re: [soac-mapo] Note of GAC position on paying for objections

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Evan

Agree with your comments.

To your very last point.  The DAG4 does have a 'Consolidation of Objections' 
provision (3.2.2) in which DRSPs are encouraged to consolidate like objections. 
  I think staff included this in response to concerns raised by ALAC and 
others,  as well as a general efficiency measure.    

In general, I think the provision protects applicants from objection DoS.

Richard


On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8 September 2010 11:25, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> As long as the provision was the same for ALAC as for GAC, I think this would 
> make sense for the AC itself to be able to file an objection on a non-fee 
> basis.
> On the other hand, I do not agree that an individual country should be able 
> to file on a non-fee basis.
> 
> +1
> 
> If religious and cultural group is required to pay for the ability to object, 
> it seems downright obscene that governments should not. However, if 
> objections are so clear and broadly-based that they can attract general 
> support of one of the ACs, then I could support the cost being waived.
> 
> Also there is a fee to respond to an objection.  Should the applicant  who 
> must respond to the objection also be free of the fee.  Otherwise several 
> nations with similar beliefs (about homosexuality for example) file similar 
> but not identical objections, and the applicant could forced to pay a 
> separate fee to respond to each one.  This would then constitute a denial of 
> service attack by the nations.  To allow this on a non-fee basis would be 
> very wrong in my opinion.
> 
> This particular ability -- to spend an applicant into oblivion using MAPO 
> objections -- has always been a concern of At-Large and a major flaw in the 
> current process,
> 
> - Evan